I don't understand why there are so many people that think this is fake / false flag / promotional. It's obvious that llm's can do crazy computations and might get to a point where they get them to recursively evolve. They are still algorithms, they still can't do stuff that humans do but they can get scary. My point is, it's normal that humans exposed to their current frontier picture llm's doing more crazy stuff.. why would it have to be fake?
- Followed by several anthropic investor funded "nonprofit" companies
- NY times article
- Following account on Joe Rogan next day
- 100 million views on X despite account having no previous posts
The opinion and material may be real, but this was all planned. A new x account doesn't get 100 million views on its first post with no prior work or status in the community. No one even knows who this guy is. There's some sort of advertising in there.
Capture a market. Become big enough to jump hurdles XYZ due to scale and amount of, say, lawyers and compliance officers you can field. Then push for more compliance. It’s effectively a moat and one of the most durable kind since lawmakers aren’t very agile. It also opens a second front (first front being: product) to go up against newcomers. Kindly point out to the regulatory agencies that they are not compliant and demand enforcement due to “equal playing field”.
To make this point concrete: KYC in banks in Europe is on a scale of 1000s FTE per bank. No newcomer can ever comply with KYC the way big banks have implemented this by pure meat. Trouble ensue for all newcomer. That’s a moat!
I questioned how many of these articles around the HuggingFace incident are false flag operations.
This specific scenario, I can think of a few ways to accomplish this:
- the person isn't a real person.
- the person is using a different, fake name.
- the employee is paid to quit, change their name, rejoin later on. details sealed in an agreement.
- add other options.
Is there any evidence to indicate that is true? Or does the evidence we have indicate the opposite? For example - "the person isn't a real person" - is the argument that Jacob Coxon is a made-up person? Or which of these incidents do you believe this occurred with? Or would you say the evidence shows the opposite of what you claimed?
Can we just think through the logistics of AI taking over the world? Like, we won't notice it using all our GPUs? Like it somehow would have enough context to take over the world? lol.
Considering we cannot keep up with energy demands, and fuel costs are increasing drastically, while data centers are partially powered by diesel generator fleets, due to electrical infrastructure limitations.
Are these companies even going to be alive in the next 5-10 years?
So much of this is being floated by investor money, with customer revenue way below threshold.
The more the models dog food the internet, the wackier they will get, with the amount of slop being created at this point in time.
This feels like a performance designed to launch this guys career in some "ai safety thinktank".
If he really did work there for the last 3 years doing what he said, he probably doesn't need a new career
3 months
I don't understand why there are so many people that think this is fake / false flag / promotional. It's obvious that llm's can do crazy computations and might get to a point where they get them to recursively evolve. They are still algorithms, they still can't do stuff that humans do but they can get scary. My point is, it's normal that humans exposed to their current frontier picture llm's doing more crazy stuff.. why would it have to be fake?
- Account with 0 posts on x
- Followed by several anthropic investor funded "nonprofit" companies
- NY times article
- Following account on Joe Rogan next day
- 100 million views on X despite account having no previous posts
The opinion and material may be real, but this was all planned. A new x account doesn't get 100 million views on its first post with no prior work or status in the community. No one even knows who this guy is. There's some sort of advertising in there.
- Apocalyptic visions in obscure format of 9 posts.
Looks like attention distraction.
I wonder how many of these are false flag operations. Pushing for AI regulation, after the market has been captured by the 2 top dogs.
Who else is going to compete? Everyone in this space already has gonzo capital, massive data centers, $1M salaries, etc.
I.e. employees are choosing to quit their jobs to run a false flag operation?
> I wonder how many of these are false flag operations.
If I may ask, could you elaborate on what you mean?
Capture a market. Become big enough to jump hurdles XYZ due to scale and amount of, say, lawyers and compliance officers you can field. Then push for more compliance. It’s effectively a moat and one of the most durable kind since lawmakers aren’t very agile. It also opens a second front (first front being: product) to go up against newcomers. Kindly point out to the regulatory agencies that they are not compliant and demand enforcement due to “equal playing field”.
To make this point concrete: KYC in banks in Europe is on a scale of 1000s FTE per bank. No newcomer can ever comply with KYC the way big banks have implemented this by pure meat. Trouble ensue for all newcomer. That’s a moat!
See the second sentence.
The idea being that the employee(s) quit in order to run the false flag? Are their other historical examples of employees quitting to run false flags?
I questioned how many of these articles around the HuggingFace incident are false flag operations.
This specific scenario, I can think of a few ways to accomplish this:
- the person isn't a real person. - the person is using a different, fake name. - the employee is paid to quit, change their name, rejoin later on. details sealed in an agreement. - add other options.
Is there any evidence to indicate that is true? Or does the evidence we have indicate the opposite? For example - "the person isn't a real person" - is the argument that Jacob Coxon is a made-up person? Or which of these incidents do you believe this occurred with? Or would you say the evidence shows the opposite of what you claimed?
Hmm, that's literally what this is asserting:
https://x.com/ParkerThayer/status/2097759699626328575
but then how would you explain this, are they all "in on it"?
https://x.com/TaylorPopielarz/status/2097710620187455954
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49619227
It's fake account. The person doesn't even exist
I thought so too but found that he does have two publications under his name.
Quitting Anthropic is the new dropping out of Stanford
yawn
Can we just think through the logistics of AI taking over the world? Like, we won't notice it using all our GPUs? Like it somehow would have enough context to take over the world? lol.
Considering we cannot keep up with energy demands, and fuel costs are increasing drastically, while data centers are partially powered by diesel generator fleets, due to electrical infrastructure limitations. Are these companies even going to be alive in the next 5-10 years? So much of this is being floated by investor money, with customer revenue way below threshold.
The more the models dog food the internet, the wackier they will get, with the amount of slop being created at this point in time.
another marketing trick?